Help recommend me a beginner DSLR!

[blackbird]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't know how much you like Canon cameras, but generally speaking regardless of brand, if possible, don't let the sum of $200 extra get in the way of you and the camera that you really want. Postpone the purchase and save a bit more if you have to. The camera will be used for a few years, so better get something you really like. Canon 40D is not comparable to Nikon D40 or D3000, the Canon is in higher class altogether. If you are okay with the handling of 40D in your hands, I suggest you get Canon 40D instead. But I think if you compare it with D200 Nikon, I would rather get D200. But I don't think you can get a used one for $400 though. By the way did you put aside a different budget for lens, or $400 is with lens budget included? If $400 is with lens, I think that's a bit too little for DSLR budget I'm afraid. In that case you can always go for prosumer camera, some of them are really decent as long as you know what do do with them. If what you mean shooting people as in portrait, then it's better to have a DSLR. But if people you mean just everyday activity, eg. dinner, going out with friends, etc. you can also have a look at Panasonic LX3. That is one seriously nice camera. A bit over $400 new though.

After spending some time with my AV-1, i've learned to like 50mm lenses. Sure, they don't allow me to zoom, ut for some reason, I really like them. I guess the Digital equivalent for a 50mm lens is a 35mm lense(with 1.5x, thatll be around 50mm) . Lets say I get the D40 from KEH for $350. How much would it be to get an additional manual focus 35mm f1.8 lens? I kinda do like manual focusing, because auto focusing is so complicated, and there is no fine control.

As for a P&S, no, I will not take that. It has to be a DSLR.

 

[M0T0XGUY]

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackbird /img/forum/go_quote.gif After spending some time with my AV-1, i've learned to like 50mm lenses. Sure, they don't allow me to zoom, ut for some reason, I really like them. I guess the Digital equivalent for a 50mm lens is a 35mm lense(with 1.5x, thatll be around 50mm) . Lets say I get the D40 from KEH for $350. How much would it be to get an additional manual focus 35mm f1.8 lens? I kinda do like manual focusing, because auto focusing is so complicated, and there is no fine control. As for a P&S, no, I will not take that. It has to be a DSLR.

There's a 35mm f/2.0 AIS, but it's not very good. If you're willing to buy potentially beaten-up - but still fully functional - gear, you could probably score a 35mm f/2.8 AI or AIS for around $50-100. Personally, though, I'd consider saving up an additional $150 for the AF-S 35mm f/1.8. If you really don't want auto-focus, set the lens to M and pretend its 1979.

 

[M0T0XGUY]

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackbird /img/forum/go_quote.gif After spending some time with my AV-1, i've learned to like 50mm lenses. Sure, they don't allow me to zoom, ut for some reason, I really like them. I guess the Digital equivalent for a 50mm lens is a 35mm lense(with 1.5x, thatll be around 50mm) . Lets say I get the D40 from KEH for $350. How much would it be to get an additional manual focus 35mm f1.8 lens? I kinda do like manual focusing, because auto focusing is so complicated, and there is no fine control. As for a P&S, no, I will not take that. It has to be a DSLR.

Adorama and B&H Photo often have refurbished D40 kits in stock for $375. I would buy one in a second, if I were you, and purchase additional lenses as needed.

 

[dj_mocok]

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackbird /img/forum/go_quote.gif After spending some time with my AV-1, i've learned to like 50mm lenses. Sure, they don't allow me to zoom, ut for some reason, I really like them. I guess the Digital equivalent for a 50mm lens is a 35mm lense(with 1.5x, thatll be around 50mm) . Lets say I get the D40 from KEH for $350. How much would it be to get an additional manual focus 35mm f1.8 lens? I kinda do like manual focusing, because auto focusing is so complicated, and there is no fine control. As for a P&S, no, I will not take that. It has to be a DSLR.

You also have to remember manual focusing on small camera like D40 will be more difficult because it has small optical viewfinder. You will not have the same experience as manual focusing with even a cheap film SLR.

35mm 1.8 is not that expensive but still more expensive than 50mm 1.8

One other thing you have to remember when doing manual focus with small DSLR body is, it is not going to be comfortable (well at least for me).
Even with bigger D80 I didn't enjoy it as much as with D200 sized camera.

Basically when manual focusing, I like to have my left hand (the one turning the focus barrel) free of obstruction from my right hand (the one holding the camera).
With D80, I can't freely do that because the camera body is small, and your left hand fingers will meet the right hands fingers, preventing you from manual focusing freely.
So if the bigger D80 is already giving me that problem, I think D40 will be much worse.
With D200 my left hand can freely manual focus without obstruction, so it's much more comfortable.

I mean you might not feel like this, but I suggest if you plan to MF with D40 you better actually try that exact thing at the shop before buying it, because: first, viewfinder isn't great, second, I personally think the form factor of D40 is not designed for manual focusing but more for convenient AF shooting.

So as usual (head-fi tradition) my solution is to blow the budget up a bit, haha..

 

[blackbird]

Quote:

Originally Posted by M0T0XGUY /img/forum/go_quote.gif Adorama and B&H Photo often have refurbished D40 kits in stock for $375. I would buy one in a second, if I were you, and purchase additional lenses as needed.

Do I have to go in store, because the ones I found online are NOT $375. As for buying used stuff, is it better to go with Adorama, B&H or KEH? With KEH, I wouldn't have to pay tax, but with Adorama and B&H(since they are in the city), I would have to. Which of the three generally has better quality for used?

As for the D40 and Manual Focusing, I'll have to see in store. I'll probably go to Adorama, simply because I'm more likely to pass through 18th street and 6th rather than 34th street. I do want to know, however, do I get the fancy "Overexposure/Underexposure" scale on the viewfinder? I actually like that feature. I can't understand the concept of AF.

For example, if you want to take a picture like this, how would you focus on the boy instead of the cup with AF?

Also, the Aperture things kinda confuse me. For indoor, for example(on the AV1), I would have to set the aperture to 2.8 because there isn't enough light. But how do I know that 2.8 won't blur the image? Anything higher than 2.8 is overexposed, so I'm pretty much forced to use it, but because the effects of 2.8 aren't shown on the lens in real time, I can't tell. How do you know then?

If the lenses do not tell you the affect of each aperture in real time, then how are you supposed to take photos like this on a SLR without having to look at the developed photo or reviewing on a DSLR?

 

[PerformanceFirst]

The "over/under exposure scale" is your light meter. Your P&S had AF and an SLR isn't too different. You can select an AF point in the viewfinder if the camera really isn't focusing where you want it to.

As for your aperture question, most DSLRs have a DOF preview button that stops the lens down to the selected aperture so you can see what will be in focus. It does dim the viewfinder quite a bit. Perhaps FF cameras are better with that. Of course, nowadays you also have the benefit of IS lenses and ISO you can change at will for low light. You really ought to go look at a camera in person. All your camera handling questions will be answered instantly.

 

[M0T0XGUY]

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackbird /img/forum/go_quote.gif Do I have to go in store, because the ones I found online are NOT $375. As for buying used stuff, is it better to go with Adorama, B&H or KEH? With KEH, I wouldn't have to pay tax, but with Adorama and B&H(since they are in the city), I would have to. Which of the three generally has better quality for used? As for the D40 and Manual Focusing, I'll have to see in store. I'll probably go to Adorama, simply because I'm more likely to pass through 18th street and 6th rather than 34th street. I do want to know, however, do I get the fancy "Overexposure/Underexposure" scale on the viewfinder? I actually like that feature. I can't understand the concept of AF. http://www.vothphoto.com/spotlight/articles/forgotten_lens/ice-cream.jpg[MG] For example, if you want to take a picture like this, how would you focus on the boy instead of the cup with AF? Also, the Aperture things kinda confuse me. For indoor, for example(on the AV1), I would have to set the aperture to 2.8 because there isn't enough light. But how do I know that 2.8 won't blur the image? Anything higher than 2.8 is overexposed, so I'm pretty much forced to use it, but because the effects of 2.8 aren't shown on the lens in real time, I can't tell. How do you know then? If the lenses do not tell you the affect of each aperture in real time, then how are you supposed to take photos like this on a SLR without having to look at the developed photo or reviewing on a DSLR? [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/01/Jonquil_flowers_at_f5.jpg/400px-Jonquil_flowers_at_f5.jpg[MG][/i] [/td] [/tr] [/table] Unlike point and shoots, you can manually select the AF point (out of 3, in the case of the D40) on a DSLR, and the camera will focus on whatever falls under that point. I think you're misunderstanding the idea of aperture. Exposure is determined by aperture, shutter speed, and ISO; and on film bodies, where the ISO is held constant, shutter speed is adjusted to achieve proper exposure based on the aperture used. In other words, exposures can be made in an equivalent manner, such that regardless of aperture, your pictures will display proper brightness. Indoors, you're instructed to use [i]large[/i] apertures (i.e., f/2.8), because the limited available light necessitates a longer shutter speed to achieve proper exposure. Larger apertures allow you to use faster shutter speeds than smaller apertures, [i]but in both cases, the principal brightness / exposure of the photo will be the same.[/i] For example, one might need to use a shutter speed of 1/30th of a second (slow) with an aperture of f/5.6 to achieve proper exposure; but with an aperture of f/2.8, one could use a shutter speed of 1/125th of a second to achieve the same brightness - reducing opportunities for blur. Note that the choice of aperture alone will not determine the exposure of the photo - it depends equally on the shutter speed set on the camera.

 

[PerformanceFirst]

One other thing regarding AF... many lenses (usually nicer ones) offer full time manual focus, so you can also simply grab the focal ring and focus on what you want, without having to switch to MF.

 

[Spareribs]

Heres a review of the Nikon D40 from Amazon:

"Nikon has hit a grand slam with this camera. It's as close to perfection as any digital camera has ever come. Sure, there are "better" cameras for more money, but they are all twice the size/weight. I would get this camera even if I had an unlimited amount of money to spend. There is simply nothing like it. Lots of ingenius user interface elements, superb feel/handling, superb flash (both internal and external SB-400), outstanding image quality, instant response, superb viewfinder, superb LCD... I could go on. I have nothing bad to say about it, and I'm extremely picky. I thought I was going to wait for a full-frame sensor body, but when this came along, I could not wait to upgrade.

The lack of a built-in focusing motor is an ADVANTAGE in my opinion. It's one reason the camera is so small and lightweight, and I believe all future Nikon lenses will have internal focusing anyway. So unless you want to use older, heavier, and slower focusing lenses for some strange reason, you'd be paying for and carrying around something you won't even use.

In addition to the superb 18-55mm (i.e. 27-82.5mm) kit lens, I bought the 55-200mm VR II and 50mm F/1.8D lenses, the SB-400 external flash and a remote (3rd party off Ebay). I suspect many, many people will buy this exact set of equipment, since it's really all you'll ever need. No need for an extra battery, unless you ever go many photo-filled days without being able to recharge. Get at least two 1GB 50x (or faster) SD cards, so if one stops working (it does happen), you aren't stuck.

The 55-200mm VR (i.e. 82.5-300mm) is a necessity for shooting any action/wildlife. The optical stabilization is truly awesome, and better than sensor-based stabilization (e.g. Pentax K10D, Sony Alpha) since you can see it working right through the viewfinder, making it easier to frame/focus your shot. Although the lens may seem slow (f4-5.6), don't forget that stabilization gives you an extra 2-3 stops, so it's really more like f2-2.8 (without the reduced depth of field, of course). DO NOT consider the slightly cheaper non-VR version, unless the slightly smaller size is an absolute necessity.

The 50mm (i.e. 75mm) is a nice walkaround lens when you want to go as light/small as possible. It's super fast (f1.8!), allowing you to take handheld photos at night with no flash! It's also a nice portrait lens, although the 55-200 is better (75mm is a little short).

The D40x is a poorer choice for the vast majority of people. The extra resolution means your photos take up more space and are slower to work with. It also has a slower max. flash sync speed (1/200 vs 1/500). If you don't know what this means, trust me, it's important, and one day you'll be really happy you have it. Since the D40's pixels are larger (less pixels in the same size sensor), there is less noise, so having ISO 100 is useless. Do you really need 10MP? Do you print larger than 16x20? Heck, do you print at all? I know I don't. Think it will give you more cropping ability? Think again. Without a super expensive lens ($1k+), the lack of sharpness and magnified distortion of the cropped image won't be as good as the uncropped 6MP of the D40. Save the $200 and use it to get the 55-200 lens, or the 50mm lens and the flash.

If you're ready to move to a DSLR, take this camera for a test drive. You will most likely fall in love with it's wonderful handling, and excellent performance, as so many people have. There will be a new generation of cameras coming out this fall, so you may want to wait, although there's really nothing that can be improved upon with this camera."

 

[blackbird]

Quote:

Originally Posted by M0T0XGUY /img/forum/go_quote.gif Unlike point and shoots, you can manually select the AF point (out of 3, in the case of the D40) on a DSLR, and the camera will focus on whatever falls under that point. I think you're misunderstanding the idea of aperture. Exposure is determined by aperture, shutter speed, and ISO; and on film bodies, where the ISO is held constant, shutter speed is adjusted to achieve proper exposure based on the aperture used. In other words, exposures can be made in an equivalent manner, such that regardless of aperture, your pictures will display proper brightness. Indoors, you're instructed to use large apertures (i.e., f/2.8), because the limited available light necessitates a longer shutter speed to achieve proper exposure. Larger apertures allow you to use faster shutter speeds than smaller apertures, but in both cases, the principal brightness / exposure of the photo will be the same. For example, one might need to use a shutter speed of 1/30th of a second (slow) with an aperture of f/5.6 to achieve proper exposure; but with an aperture of f/2.8, one could use a shutter speed of 1/125th of a second to achieve the same brightness - reducing opportunities for blur. Note that the choice of aperture alone will not determine the exposure of the photo - it depends equally on the shutter speed set on the camera.

So you are saying that when the aperture and the external light is in unison, bluring(such as on the flower picture) will not occur? So If i use 2.8 in a low light situation, it will not blur, right? But if I use 2.8 outdoors on a sunny day, it will?

 

[M0T0XGUY]

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackbird /img/forum/go_quote.gif So you are saying that when the aperture and the external light is in unison, bluring(such as on the flower picture) will not occur? So If i use 2.8 in a low light situation, it will not blur, right? But if I use 2.8 outdoors on a sunny day, it will?

No, sorry if I wasn't clear. By "blur," I meant motion blur; that is, the visible "shakiness" you can see in photos taken with long shutter speeds. The blur I suppose you were referring to is actually the result of a thin depth of field, meaning that, in the flower photo you posted, the background of the shot is placed smoothly out of focus.

In my post I was simply suggesting that larger apertures allow for faster shutter speeds, reducing the chance for this "shakiness" that results in unusably un-sharp photos. The blur caused by thin depth of field will remain constant regardless of the amount of light present.

 

[Teraflame]

I would rather get a D50 over a D40, honestly.

 

[Benaiir]

Maybe the OP could consider a high-end Fujitsu Finepix full sized camera? They run for 200ish if you do your homework (Ebay is a good place to camp out), and the S8100/S2000HD/S9100 are said to be able to produce "DSLR quality" photos. I'd rather spend less on something that I know I will be likely to upgrade.